Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: 2nd Amendment - an "individual" right?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    242

    Post imported post

    http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline...he-high-c.html

    There ya' go - a poll with which to reflect YOUR opinion. Pete

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Home of the Heros, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    418

    Post imported post

    I believe its not just individual right, its a right of all americans as a whole

  3. #3
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    95% vote yes, 4% vote no, and 1% don't know. 3822 people have voted so far.

    Interesting initial results.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    242

    Post imported post

    The ANTI-gun factions are trying to portray the 2nd Amendment as a collective right that exists only to allow us to serve in the National Guard or a state-sponsored militia, as opposed to being an "individual" right, for ALL citizens.

    That's part of what the upcoming Supreme Court decision will - hopefully - clarify. Pete

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Its a silly argument--collective rights.

    One can't claim the people in aggregate are worth defending unless the individuals who make up the aggregate are worth defending.

    I wonder if anyone will correct the poll question about 2A giving the RKBA.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    That's the problem with the MSM - they think that the Bill of Rights give certain rights to citizens and given their mostly leftist educations they don't understand that the Bill of Rights simply protects natural rights from government intrusion.


    I would love to see a poll question such as: Does the 1st Amendment give members of the MSM the right to say stupid, uneducated things about the Bill of Rights.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    SNIP I would love to see a poll question such as: Does the 1st Amendment give members of the MSM the right to say stupid, uneducated things about the Bill of Rights.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  8. #8
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Just a "wannabe" in Mtn. Top, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,441

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Its a silly argument--collective rights.

    One can't claim the people in aggregate are worth defending unless the individuals who make up the aggregate are worth defending.

    I wonder if anyone will correct the poll question about 2A giving the RKBA.
    It's also silly because the Bill of Rights are ALL individual rights.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Pa. Patriot wrote:
    It's also silly because the Bill of Rights are ALL individual rights.
    +1


    Well, maybe excepting that one about Congress making a law respecting establishment of religion. And that one about powers retained by the people--#10.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    I also wonder why anyone would think it would be necessary to explicitly state a right to have one's military be armed. "Today we have a landmark Supreme Court case where we will see... if the Marines are allowed to carry guns into combat."

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    The bill of rights was not written to protect collective rights, it was written to protect the rights the people already had from government intrusion. Look where else the word "people" is used (first, second, fourth, fifth amendments. You don't see anybody saying that this refers to some BS collective right because they would be quickly discredited!

    There was at least one draft of the second amendment introduced at the time which uses the phrase "a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people!".

    In any case, all but a few states protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms, in some kind of language. So the right to keep and bear arms is protected at the state and national level.

  12. #12
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    swatpro911 wrote:
    I believe its not just individual right, its a right of all americans as a whole
    Leave it to me to interject.

    I assume you meant to say, "I believe it's not just an individual right, it's a right of all Americans as a whole."

    In my interpretation of the statement, you're saying you subscribe to both an individual and a collectivist view of the right. As recently as a year or two ago, I was under the mistaken belief that the 2A is either a collective right or a right of the general populace. This was somewhat driven by the 9th circuits rulings on cases here in California.

    I think the reason that there is this 'collective' right distortion, is attributable to both the founding fathers inability to foresee an overreaching Federal government and the legislators and judiciaryspropensity for incrementalism.

    These rights that are enumerated in the bill of rights are not set forth as only for "Americans' but for anyone who is in jurisdiction of the United States. When someone is a vistor or a resident alien, they have the same right to speech as we are. And I believe it doesnt stop there... Since there are no 'exceptions' in the application and excersize of rights, each individual must have the same right and same ability to excersize it.

    I believe there would be little discussion of 'collective rights' if the wording to the second was properly interpreted as the following;

    A well equiped Militia (armed populace) being necessary to the security of free States, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be invalidated by law or decree.


    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    ConditionThree wrote:
    These rights that are enumerated in the bill of rights are not set forth as only for "Americans' but for anyone who is in jurisdiction of the United States.
    Thomas Jefferson wrote, in the Declaration of Independence:
    "... We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable[sic]^1 rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;..."

    ^1. My reference says, "The phrase is frequently misquoted 'inalienable.'"
    ...nothing about 'jurisdiction' (though I grant the practicality of your argument) as these 'certain unalienable' Rights are enumerated in the BoR.

  14. #14
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    ConditionThree wrote:
    These rights that are enumerated in the bill of rights are not set forth as only for "Americans' but for anyone who is in jurisdiction of the United States.
    Thomas Jefferson wrote, in the Declaration of Independence:
    "... We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable[sic]^1 rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;..."

    ^1. My reference says, "The phrase is frequently misquoted 'inalienable.'"
    ...nothing about 'jurisdiction' (though I grant the practicality of your argument) as these 'certain unalienable' Rights are enumerated in the BoR.
    Yes,my use of the word'jurisdiction' is an acknowledgement that the bill of rights can only be effectly applied where the Constitution is the law of the land. By no means was it an indication that rights were statutorially limited.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  15. #15
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726

    Post imported post

    Do you remember diagramming? I think it is self explanatory.

    [img]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Skunk/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-2.jpg[/img][img]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Skunk/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-3.jpg[/img][img]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Skunk/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-4.jpg[/img]
    [img]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Skunk/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpg[/img][img]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Skunk/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-1.jpg[/img]

  16. #16
    Regular Member thnycav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Windsor VA, ,
    Posts
    305

    Post imported post


    Uniform Militia Acts of 1792

    Called for,

    --enrollment of “every able-bodied white male citizen” between 18 and 45,
    --organization into individual state units
    --militiamen provide own “arms, munitions,

    This is what they ment by a Militia


  17. #17
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Collectivism is the real problem. Too many people view themselves as part of society instead of an individual. This is comforting to some, as they can blame society instead of taking responsibility for themselves.

    I don't accept the collectivist view. I alone am responsible for my failures and successes alike. I owe nothing to society, and society owes me nothing.

    All rights exist regardless of the existance of any other person or statute. Rights belong to individuals. Collectives only can do what the individuals allow - priviledges.


    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    Apparently not these people.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  19. #19
    Regular Member UtahRSO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    146

    Post imported post

    This poll question is terribly flawed. The way this poll question is framed, the only correct answer is NO (although I answered "yes.")

    The Second Amendment does NOT give individuals the right to bear arms. The Bill of Rights simply enumerates the rights of individuals. Because it is a RIGHT, not a PRIVILEGE, it should exist whether it is written down or not.



  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bellingham, ,
    Posts
    608

    Post imported post

    I still like saying it's collectively an individual right

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    UtahRSO wrote:
    This poll question is terribly flawed. The way this poll question is framed, the only correct answer is NO (although I answered "yes.")

    The Second Amendment does NOT give individuals the right to bear arms. The Bill of Rights simply enumerates the rights of individuals. Because it is a RIGHT, not a PRIVILEGE, it should exist whether it is written down or not.

    Bill of Rights poll questions are always flawed, especially regarding 2ndA issues, but strangely enough, the only exception to this is 1st Amendment.

    We were discussing this very issue a about half a dozen posts back.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    242

    Post imported post

    Amazingly enough, the DOJ itself believes that the 2nd Amendment affirms an INDIVIDUAL right:

    http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    News in August 2004. Not news but history in November 2007

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. LAB/NRA/GOP *******

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    The Lower End of NoVa, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    719

    Post imported post

    Good article --

    http://www.titusvilleherald.com/arti...on/story01.txt

    __________________________________________________ ________________

    The ideal self-defense weapon


    By Charley Reese
    Wednesday, December 5, 2007 10:26 PM CST

    People who believe in gun control are ignorant, superstitious or stupid. Violence is not caused by inanimate objects.

    Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws, including gun-control laws.

    Therefore, the only accomplishment of gun-control laws is to assure the criminals that their victims will be unarmed.


    When the state of Florida was considering a law allowing honest citizens to carry concealed weapons, my liberal colleagues at the newspaper became virtually hysterical.

    They were certain the murder rate would skyrocket and that there would be shootings on every street corner and at supermarket checkout counters.

    The law was passed, and the murder rate did not skyrocket. Nor did hundreds of thousands of Floridians apply for concealed-weapon permits.

    After all, lugging around a pound or so of iron is inconvenient.

    What their hysteria revealed, however, was how far removed from reality elitists are.

    How could any sane person imagine that his fellow citizens would suddenly go berserk if they had access to a firearm?

    It shows you what low opinion elitists have of their fellow man.

    Having been born in the Deep South by the grace of God and having lived in the South, by choice, my whole life, I have lived among people who had access to firearms.

    In the South, there is a cultural rule: Never insult a man you are not prepared to fight, and never fight a man you are not prepared to kill.

    Southerners, unlike people in some parts of the country, all have lines they do not allow other people to cross.

    I have been blessed to live with such people. I guarantee you that Southerners would not stand around and watch some criminal murder a woman, as happened in an infamous case in New York City.

    On one of my visits to Georgia, I heard a local newscast about a man who attempted to rob a store and was captured by the store's customers. The news story said police planned to charge the man “as soon as he is released from the hospital.”

    Another point to consider about gun control is that no criminal attacks an innocent person in the presence of the police.

    Even if the victim can get to a telephone, he has to deal with the criminal until the police arrive.

    So ask yourself: How do you plan to deal with a violent criminal? The best thing to do is shoot the villain.

    A friend of mine, a South Korean tae kwon do master and a former member of South Korean intelligence, was laughing one day about kung fu schools, which teach students the use of the broadsword and the halberd.

    “Who is going to walk around carrying a broadsword?” he said. “Besides, if your life is in danger, use a gun.”

    Some years ago, a store owner in Texas, after several burglaries, decided to sleep in the store and eventually killed two armed burglars who broke in.

    “Now I know what a conservative is,” the store owner said. “He's a liberal who's been robbed one damned time too many.”

    The gun is the ideal self-defense weapon.

    It can be wielded by a woman, a child, an elderly person or even an invalid.

    There was an old saying in the American West: “God created men, but Sam Colt made them equal.”

    The Supreme Court is about to decide an issue based on the Second Amendment.

    God only knows how the court will rule, but the Bill of Rights is crystal-clear. It guarantees the people, not the states or the militias, the right to keep and bear arms.

    Let's hope the Supreme Court justices understand plain English.


  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    DeadCenter wrote:
    Good article --

    http://www.titusvilleherald.com/arti...on/story01.txt

    __________________________________________________ ________________
    Excellent op-ed piece.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •